Re: [fedora-arm] ExcludeArch tracker doesn't appear to be effective

On 2014-06-11 09:49, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 10/06/14 19:28, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Fedora is supposed to provide a consistent experience across primary
>> architectures. Having a subset of our packages fail to build on ARM
>> means that's not true, and the current state of affairs clearly
>> violates
>> point 8 of the architecture promotion requirements.
>
> Fedora includes a lot of packages, some of which are not of mainstream
> interest. Because of this lack of interest in their packages, some
> upstream maintainers haven't ported to ARM. Some upstream packages
> may not even still be actively maintained.
>
>> How can we fix this?
>
> We have to look at this on a case-by-case basis. We might have to ask
> if a package really is relevant to a general-purpose operating system.
> [Some packages may have been abandoned upstream. So, they will never
> be ported to ARM.]
>
> Let's look at Bug 1004357 - root no available on ARM due to cint.
>
> The upstream maintainers say:
>
> We will not implement vararg support for that platform in ROOT
> 5. It's not trivial and we have to spend our time getting ROOT 6
> baked. Thanks for your understanding!
>
> So, what should we do? Should we block Fedora from running on ARM
> because of the lack of upstream support for the ROOT numerical data
> analysis framework? No! That would be ridiculous. It would mean
> that Fedora on the ARM target is held hostage by this package.
>
> Special-purpose packages are all well and good, but Fedora on ARM is
> (IMHO, YMMV) far more important than those packages.

This is a fair point, but perhaps that calls for a separation between
core packages and optional packages, similar to EL and EPEL.

Gordan
_______________________________________________
arm mailing list
arm@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm